The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

philologos · 28-07-2012 5:39pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and what exactly is the context as it appears to me and many others that the context is cherry pick the bits that support the viewpoint one is espousing and ignore all the other bits.

Again misunderstanding very clearly that the Bible has two covenant agreements. One with the nation of Israel which has now been fulfilled.

Another for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

There are also other covenants between Adam and God, Noah and God, and Abraham and God.

Christianity has been clear about this since its beginning (Hebrews chapter 8 for example), and Judaism has been clear that this would happen when the Messiah came (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

The Bible needs to be considered as a whole, and passages that are within it need to be considered in terms of where they are in the narrative. That's just good reading of a text.

Bannasidhe · 28-07-2012 5:54pm

philologos wrote: »

Again misunderstanding very clearly that the Bible has two covenant agreement. One with the nation of Israel which has now been fulfilled.

Another for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

There are also other covenants between Adam and God, Noah and God, and Abraham and God.

Christianity has been clear about this since its beginning (Hebrews chapter 8 for example), and Judaism has been clear that this would happen when the Messiah came (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

The Bible needs to be considered as a whole, and passages that are within it need to be considered in terms of where they are in the narrative. That's just good reading of a text.

You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing?

If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.

philologos · 28-07-2012 6:02pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing?

If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.

It's not about ignoring the text. It's about reading it correctly and in its proper context.

Christians from the very beginning have read the Old Testament in the light of Christ (2 Corinthians 3) and have always argued that the Old Covenant agreement simply points towards Jesus, and His death and resurrection for mankind on the cross.

All Christians do in respect to the Old Testament is say, since Jesus has come, and in consideration of His impact, let's read previous Scripture in that light. The Gospels and the Apostle's writings are clear that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism, and that a new covenant agreement has been established with all mankind.

That's Christianity 101.

token56 · 28-07-2012 6:50pm

Nodin wrote: »

....but marriage is not the property of religion. You can say that whatever church can refuse to perform the ceremony, but they've no right to stop anyone else.

This right here is the crux of the issue. No one wants to/should want to force any religious organisation to perform any ceremony that they dont want to. But marriage is not a term owned by any religion as stated above. What gay marriage deals with is the definition of marriage by the state in the eyes of a secular nation like Ireland. In Ireland until 2004 marriage by the state was not defined as being between a man and women and the only relevant part of the constitution was the infamous part of Article 41

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack

So in the Irish Constitution marriage is intrinsically linked with family. Until the civil registration act in 2004 the definition of a marriage and therefore family was simply interpreted to be that with heterosexual couples until this was put into law. But what is the purpose of the family and how is a family defined? That is the most divisive issue here.

Now families dont have to contain kids but for the most part they do and most people would agree are important to the purpose of a family and is key to the argument here. So are kids in a family with a heterosexual couple better off in some way than in a family with homosexual couples? Religious organisations would obvious be inclined to sway towards one side but from an objective point of view what is the answer? How is better even measured here and what are the criteria for evaluating how good a family is? Research is being done in trying to evaluate this and results certainly seem to indicate there not being much of a difference. There is quite a large body of work in the area so my conclusion is based on a general sifting of them thus far. But for those interested even have a look at the original paper below and a couple of other relevant ones citing it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&cites=6671784867694423843&scipsc=

So in a secular society the question becomes is there any reason to prefer one definition of family over another. Because if not and homosexual families are equally as good as heterosexual families then homosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed marry and create a family. The issue of whether or not a couple can actually procreate themselves to create a family with kids is a straw-man.

PDN · 28-07-2012 7:44pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If he had expressed the opinion as Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, private citizen of Germany I would not have an the slightest issue but he did not. In the guise of Pope Benedict XVI as leader of a major world religion he expressed an official Roman Catholic policy to an audience of international diplomats.

Do you understand the difference between the man as private individual and the man as figurehead and representative?

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

It is entirely legitimate for a head of religion, or a head of State for that matter, to express their opinion on this issue.

Barack Obama expressed his opinion, but only hysterical conspiracy theorists see that as somehow dictating what other people do.

PDN · 28-07-2012 7:46pm

Nodin wrote: »

So its perfectly ok to quote Leviticus when it suits. With ye now.

That is nothing like what philologos said. :rolleyes:

Snappy Smurf · 28-07-2012 7:47pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Pope can speak only for Roman Catholics.

Pope speaks for and on behalf of Christ in matters of faith and morals.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So is your definition of marriage that is exists only to facilitate procreation?

Yeah pretty much. Marriage is for the procreation of children and the good of spouses.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Obama is the democratically elected head of State charged with protecting a constitution that clearly separates church and State and enshrines equality and civil liberties for all U.S. citizens

Gilmore is a democratically elected member of the Dail charged with representation and ensuring equality under the law or all of the citizens of Ireland regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.

Both men we commenting on a debate occurring within the jurisdictions they were elected to govern and within which they can and do enact legislation.

The Pope is an unelected absolute ruler of a multinational organisation who claims to speak for God himself and whether one agrees with him or not, his position is one of international influence and his 'opinion' (he is after all meant to be infallible when it comes to matter of doctrine and an anti-Gay marriage stance is official RCC policy) does carry weight.

Pope is as free as others in earthly terms to give his opinion and also to propagate Christian doctrine. Or would you say he hasn't? Interesting..

Corkfeen wrote: »

It is unethical to utilise students for a campaign against marriage, most of whom don't have an opinion on the matter. There's a reason why this provoked a government investigation into the matter as you are not supposed to use a classroom to campaign on political issues.

Was this like Catholic instruction in a Catholic school? What's the issue here?

token56 wrote: »

This right here is the crux of the issue. No one wants to/should want to force any religious organisation to perform any ceremony that they dont want to. But marriage is not a term owned by any religion as stated above. What gay marriage deals with is the definition of marriage by the state in the eyes of a secular nation like Ireland. In Ireland until 2004 marriage by the state was not defined as being between a man and women and the only relevant part of the constitution was the infamous part of Article 41

So in the Irish Constitution marriage is intrinsically linked with family. Until the civil registration act in 2004 the definition of a marriage and therefore family was simply interpreted to be that with heterosexual couples until this was put into law. But what is the purpose of the family and how is a family defined? That is the most divisive issue here.

Now families dont have to contain kids but for the most part they do and most people would agree are important to the purpose of a family and is key to the argument here. So are kids in a family with a heterosexual couple better off in some way than in a family with homosexual couples? Religious organisations would obvious be inclined to sway towards one side but from an objective point of view what is the answer? How is better even measured here and what are the criteria for evaluating how good a family is? Research is being done in trying to evaluate this and results certainly seem to indicate there not being much of a difference. There is quite a large body of work in the area so my conclusion is based on a general sifting of them thus far. But for those interested even have a look at the original paper below and a couple of other relevant ones citing it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&cites=6671784867694423843&scipsc=

So in a secular society the question becomes is there any reason to prefer one definition of family over another. Because if not and homosexual families are equally as good as heterosexual families then homosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed marry and create a family. The issue of whether or not a couple can actually procreate themselves to create a family with kids is a straw-man.

No it's not a straw man. If I buy a van and start calling myself the ice cream man, if I can't produce real ice cream I am deluding myself.

The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.

PDN · 28-07-2012 7:50pm

Nodin wrote: »

A straight "yes" or "no" on the question of whether or not it was legitamate to quote leviticus against homosexuality would have sufficed.

Look, you're on the Christianity Forum - the purpose of which is to discuss Christian belief. If you don't like people discussing Christian beliefs in words of more than one syllable then perhaps this is not the Forum for you.

God forbid that we all abandon any kind of nuanced or thoughtful discussion and simply resort to simplistic grandstanding.

PDN · 28-07-2012 7:55pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing?

If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.

I suggest you start a thread on hermeneutics. It is going to really get tiresome, and derail the thread hopelessly, if we have to explain the basic principles of biblical interpretation in this one to people who are uninformed on the subject.

Putting it very simply, a verse in Leviticus is inadequate when quoted as a justification for being against homosexuality. If you want to get into the reasons why, then feel free to start a thread we we can answer your questions on the basic principles followed by Christians in interpreting the Bible

(I'm catching up on the thread as I've been driving on the interstate for the last two hours. I'm currently talking a break, eating a fine Chick-fil-A chicen sandwich, and piggybacking on the wireless signal from the McDonalds next door)

wonderfulname · 28-07-2012 8:05pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be.

I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two very different animals, civil marriage covers all the rights you are talking about, but it's not the sacrament of matrimony, which is the only 'marriage' the Church can lay claim to, that will remain indissolvable and between two virgins of the opposite sex for as long as you guys want, a change in law does not affect the workings of your religion, likewise the laws of one religious sect should not determine the laws that govern society as a whole.

Question time: Does the Catholic Church recognise civil marriage without special dispensation? I think not but I'm not quite sure, if it's the case, why get so worked up over something that does nothing more than confer rights to a couple?

Sorry for focusing on Catholics but I would assume the concept that marriage in the eyes of the law is not marriage in the eyes of God holds true across the board. I wonder if this line of argument is particular to countries where civil marriage is performed alongside religious, for example do Italian Catholics falsely equate the two when they obtain civil marriage status in advance of the church ceremony, rather than during as Catholics do here.

Elysian · 28-07-2012 8:11pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

How come women don't compete against men in the Olympics or in football? Because Men and Women are different. You can't negate biology.

Just because men are generally better than woman in football it doesn't mean that two men or two women cant successfully raise a kid in a loving and healthy environment.

Bannasidhe · 28-07-2012 8:50pm

PDN wrote: »

I suggest you start a thread on hermeneutics. It is going to really get tiresome, and derail the thread hopelessly, if we have to explain the basic principles of biblical interpretation in this one to people who are uninformed on the subject.

Putting it very simply, a verse in Leviticus is inadequate when quoted as a justification for being against homosexuality. If you want to get into the reasons why, then feel free to start a thread we we can answer your questions on the basic principles followed by Christians in interpreting the Bible

(I'm catching up on the thread as I've been driving on the interstate for the last two hours. I'm currently talking a break, eating a fine Chick-fil-A chicen sandwich, and piggybacking on the wireless signal from the McDonalds next door)

I suggest that if Christians are going to discuss why their religious beliefs determine their position on homosexuality and the scriptural reasoning which underpins the often virulent opposition expressed by some posters- which is after all the point of this thread -then it is not derailing the thread, nor is it unreasonable, for a non-Christian to question why certain passages of the Bible - those in Leviticus for example, are trotted out by some Christians as a justifiable reason while passages in the exact same text can seemingly be ignored by those same Christians as irrelevant to 21st Century life. Seems to me it's having your cake and eating it 101.

Christians state their position is based on Biblical texts -some say both OT and NT/others say just NT- yet grow defensive when asked to clarify which sections they believe are relevant to their argument and when it is pointed out that not all of the strictures contained within the either of those are followed by Christians even as some of them seek to impose Biblically inspired strictures on people of other faiths and none. Are we now not allowed to discuss this?

Also given the diversity of interpretations of those same texts it is neither derailing the thread nor unreasonable to attempt to determine which specific interpretation a particular Christian poster is alluding to - do they mean Roman Catholic or Calvinist, Baptist or Lutheran? Maybe they are Anabaptists, Methodists, Quaker, Amish (unlikely on an internet forum granted but they could be on Rumspringa), Mormon or any of the plethora of Christian denominations in existence across the globe.

Christians all don't believe the same things but all base your religious beliefs on the same book which naturally can lead to confusion as to which form of Christianity a particular poster is advocating so there really is no need to get sniffy with people who are trying to understand your various, and often conflicting, motivations and interpretations.

Unless of course you don't actually want an actual debate and are embarrassed that despite frequent references to 'Christian' beliefs the demonstrable reality is you all simply can't agree on what the Bible actually says - hence all of the widely conflicting interpretations.

georgieporgy · 28-07-2012 9:05pm

let him finish his sandwich.:pac:

philologos · 28-07-2012 9:13pm

I've explained to you already how Christians read Old Testament texts. We read the text while considering what Jesus has done. That's been done right from the beginning of the early Christian church (2 Corinthians 3 for example).

Christians believe that ceremonial laws existed for the Hebrew people, for example in terms of dietary laws, in terms of ritual uncleanliness and so on to mark them as distinctive from the Gentiles. These are distinct from moral laws. The New Testament makes clear that God tore down the dividing line between Jews and Gentiles at the coming of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2). This is why the ceremonial laws of the Torah have been fulfilled.

One clear example: We don't offer animal sacrifices any longer, because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Therefore, when I read passages about animal sacrifice in Leviticus, I learn about how God revealed Himself to the Hebrews for sure, and I learn a bit about how the Hebrews related to Him. However, as a Christian, I know that Jesus died in my place on the cross. As a result of that I am under a new covenant with God.

However, moral and ethical laws remain the same. For example, Christians by and large agree with the ethical laws of the Torah. I.E - Not to steal, not to lie, not to dishonour ones mother and father, not to blaspheme, not to make idols, to regard the poor and the stranger in society, to give freely to those who desperately need it.

One God, two different agreements at different times in history. The Bible is clear about showing us this.

I wish that people who mock and scoff at the Bible would actually just sit down and read it and seek out Jesus.

Edit: I can guarantee you that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and so on will be in full agreement on this. Any mainline Christian should be. Personally I'm an evangelical and I've read the Bible with people from most of the afforementioned denominations and others.

Bannasidhe · 28-07-2012 9:23pm

philologos wrote: »

I've explained to you already how Christians read Old Testament texts. We read the text while considering what Jesus has done. That's been done right from the beginning of the early Christian church (2 Corinthians 3 for example).

Christians believe that ceremonial laws existed for the Hebrew people, for example in terms of dietary laws, in terms of ritual uncleanliness and so on to mark them as distinctive from the Gentiles. These are distinct from moral laws. The New Testament makes clear that God tore down the dividing line between Jews and Gentiles at the coming of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2). This is why the ceremonial laws of the Torah have been fulfilled.

One clear example: We don't offer animal sacrifices any longer, because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Therefore, when I read passages about animal sacrifice in Leviticus, I learn about how God revealed Himself to the Hebrews for sure, and I learn a bit about how the Hebrews related to Him. However, as a Christian, I know that Jesus died in my place on the cross. As a result of that I am under a new covenant with God.

However, moral and ethical laws remain the same. For example, Christians by and large agree with the ethical laws of the Torah. I.E - Not to steal, not to lie, not to dishonour ones mother and father, not to blaspheme, not to make idols, to regard the poor and the stranger in society, to give freely to those who desperately need it.

One God, two different agreements at different times in history.

I wish that people who mock and scoff at the Bible would actually just sit down and read it and seek out Jesus.

I have read it, several times. I have neither mocked nor scoffed at the book. I have questioned how a person reading a poster who defines themselves and the Biblical interpretation they are employing as simply 'Christian' is meant to know if the particular interpretation is, for example, the Roman Catholic one or the Westboro Baptist one. It is Lutheran or Calvin?

What you have explained is how you read the texts - can you really, truthfully, hand on the Bible swear that every single Christian would agree with you and employ the same methodology?
What about those many Roman Catholics who have never read it at all?

Bannasidhe · 28-07-2012 9:31pm

philologos wrote: »

Edit: I can guarantee you that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and so on will be in full agreement on this. Any mainline Christian should be. Personally I'm an evangelical and I've read the Bible with people from most of the afforementioned denominations and others.

Really? I come from a very large extended Roman Catholic family and I, my agnostic son and my Lutheran ex sister-in-law are the only members who have ever read the Bible. Yes, I did ask all of my aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and in-laws 'have you read the Bible?'. Not even my son's ex father-in-law (a member of opus dei) said yes.

kerash · 28-07-2012 9:37pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not unethical to teach your children your faith. Its not unethical for your Children to live their Faith.

There is not age limit on faith. What if tomorrow my wife and I were killed and (god forbid) my Children were put up for Adoption. The way Gay Marriage is going these couples want equal rights on all levels, including being able to Adopt. I would never allow my kids to be raised by a gay couple. A child should (if possible) have the best environment and that is to have a Father and a Mother if possible. A Gay couple can't provide the best environment to raise a Child.

Of course they can, once the child is loved and cared for that is all that matters. There are plenty of male/female couples with children who shouldn't rare a dog never mind a human.

MrPudding · 28-07-2012 9:47pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

A Gay couple can't provide the best environment to raise a Child.

Really. You state this as a fact, so I expect you will have no trouble backing it up with evidence of admitting you simply made it up...?

MrP

Juza1973 · 28-07-2012 10:31pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Really. You state this as a fact, so I expect you will have no trouble backing it up with evidence of admitting you simply made it up...?

MrP

Nobody can produce final proofs of that or of the contrary. All we can produce is our personal experience and slogans. And this is a forum for christians, so christian slogans will always win over non-christian ones.

Bannasidhe · 28-07-2012 10:44pm

Juza1973 wrote: »

Nobody can produce final proofs of that or of the contrary. All we can produce is our personal experience and slogans. And this is a forum for christians, so christian slogans will always win over non-christian ones.

Well given the enormous evidence - which has repeatedly been presented to qrrgprgua in this and other forums - which shows that children raised in Gay and Lesbian households are no different from those raised in heterosexual ones then it is not really a question of spouting slogans but making demonstrably incorrect statements.

token56 · 28-07-2012 10:47pm

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

No it's not a straw man. If I buy a van and start calling myself the ice cream man, if I can't produce real ice cream I am deluding myself.

The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.

You're analogy doesn't quite work but can be changed to suit my argument anyway. If I buy a van, dont have a machine for making the ice cream but buy it ready made and sell it in my van I'm not deluded in calling myself an ice cream man. I'm a man in a van selling ice cream of as good quality as any other ice cream man, the fact that I didn't make the ice cream myself is irrelevant.

It's the exact same thing with hetero vs homosexual couples. The fact a homosexual couples can't reproduce without scientific intervention or a third person as you put it does not impact how good those two be people will be as parents. If you can somehow show me otherwise I'm all ears.

The issue here is the family environment and the raising of the family, not the creation of the family. There are plenty of examples of heterosexual couples who require scientific intervention such as IVF, or a third person, or those who simple can't have children, but no one would ever deny them the right to marriage and nor should they. Homosexual couples are just one of these couples too so it really is irrelevant.

Why does the issue of how the family is created matter so much to you? Surely would you agree the actual issue is the raising of the family and suitability of the family environment?

28-07-2012 10:50pm

The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.

Time to go make it illegal for women over 50 to marry so
or anyone infertile
:rolleyes:

the nonsense people come out with, honestly

how far did you get without "scientific intervention", by the way? Any vaccines against diseases? medicine etc?

Jim · 28-07-2012 10:52pm

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.

Women who have their ovaries removed due to cancer. Sorry, no marriage for you.

Sonics2k · 28-07-2012 10:59pm

Jim wrote: »

Women who have their ovaries removed due to cancer. Sorry, no marriage for you.

That's scientific intervention though. Best to let em die.

L.Jenkins · 28-07-2012 11:33pm

I say, if you wish to state that homosexuality is an abomination and we should all be executed for engaging in such, then you check if you partners, women are virgins. If not, then they shall be executed also. If the bible was followed to a T, I can assure you that we would not have a population of over 7 billion today.

TequilaMockingBird · 28-07-2012 11:35pm

My bright, clever young daughter would be shocked and bewildered at this outrageous bigotry.

Fear not Ireland, there's a cleverer lot coming up behind us.

Sonics2k · 28-07-2012 11:48pm

Leviticus
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

So, which of you lot really believes this? I can assume wolfsbane does, as he's already admitted he takes the Bible literally. No shocker that Snappy Smurf would be okay with it. Despite disagreeing with PDN and Phil a few times, I don't think they're quite up for murder. But, why not?

I find it intriguing the idea of context, and Jesus fulfilling things, but this right here is the kicker. You ignore the sections on food, clothing, hair, tattoos and so on. And you also come up with a wonderful excuse to do so, but then you have the audacity and utter cheek to ignore the rest of the actual sentence.

I -always- see Christians against homosexuality quote the first part, but you miraculously ignore the second part of the line.

Benny_Cake · 28-07-2012 11:54pm

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

My bright, clever young daughter would be shocked and bewildered at this outrageous bigotry.

Fear not Ireland, there's a cleverer lot coming up behind us.

When it comes to gay marriage / civil partnerships, I find it amazing how the public mood has shifted in such a short space of time. I don't think that any previous movement of a similar nature (female suffrage, racial equality) made such progress in such a short space of time. It's also worth noting that polls show younger evangelical Christians differ from their elders in that they are far more likely to favour recognition of same sex marriage. So despite the fact that some posters here persist in posts that begin with "Christians believe..." there is no uniform Christian position on this. I think there are few bigots in this forum, in that I believe that one can read the Bible and reach a conscientious decision that homosexual relationships are wrong, provided that you don't seek to deny civil liberties to others. For what it's worth, I've read plenty to persuade me that the Bible has little or nothing to say about committed and loving same-sex relationships as they exist today.

philologos · 29-07-2012 8:34am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really? I come from a very large extended Roman Catholic family and I, my agnostic son and my Lutheran ex sister-in-law are the only members who have ever read the Bible. Yes, I did ask all of my aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and in-laws 'have you read the Bible?'. Not even my son's ex father-in-law (a member of opus dei) said yes.

That's Biblical illiteracy which has nothing to do with what the Bible has to actually say on the subject. I can guarantee you if you look to what each of those churches actually holds to on covenant theology, they will be in full agreement. That's basic Christianity.

My point was that I've read the Bible in a group which contained people of many different denominations through my university Christian Union. I'll have the privilege of doing the same again with people in my workplace here in London. Most times that I've opened the Bible with other Christians, we've all come to broad agreement as to what a passage means.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

My bright, clever young daughter would be shocked and bewildered at this outrageous bigotry.

Fear not Ireland, there's a cleverer lot coming up behind us.

This isn't about intelligence. It's disingenuous to claim that it is.

Benny_Cake: If you have issues with me saying "Christians believe". You can substitute it with "Most mainline Christians believe", or "The Bible clearly says". I'm more than happy to discuss with you as to how you think Christianity presents that sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is unacceptable. Present some passages, and we'll discuss. Or provide an alternative interpretation to them.

philologos · 29-07-2012 8:38am

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, which of you lot really believes this? I can assume wolfsbane does, as he's already admitted he takes the Bible literally. No shocker that Snappy Smurf would be okay with it. Despite disagreeing with PDN and Phil a few times, I don't think they're quite up for murder. But, why not?

I find it intriguing the idea of context, and Jesus fulfilling things, but this right here is the kicker. You ignore the sections on food, clothing, hair, tattoos and so on. And you also come up with a wonderful excuse to do so, but then you have the audacity and utter cheek to ignore the rest of the actual sentence.

I -always- see Christians against homosexuality quote the first part, but you miraculously ignore the second part of the line.

Again, covenant theology, which is a basic part of Christianity shows that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross so that we might be forgiven. This influences how we read these passages as Christians.

If Jesus has died for my sins on the cross, then what right have I to insist that others should be put to death? If I've been forgiven I must forgive others (Matthew 18) also the Lord's prayer "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" (Matthew 6).

Your quotation also ignores context insofar as this is within the Biblical State of Israel which no longer exists. Christians recognise that we will be under unbelieving authorities (Romans 13), but our call as Christians is to live distinctive lives so that other people might see the Gospel (see 1 Peter).

Again, this is another reason why I have to say that if you're interested in posting about Christian belief you should become more familiar with covenant theology which is inherent to Christianity.

It's real simple, when Christians read the Old Testament, they do so while considering what Jesus has done for us.

Tipsy McSwagger · 29-07-2012 8:41am

I'm getting married in 2 years and my gf and I don't want children. If she accidentally gets pregnant I will sell the baby to a gay married couple

Irishchick · 29-07-2012 9:03am

Jesus never once said "write down everything I say, put it in a book and follow it word for word"

The only direct commands we have received from God are the 10 commandments.

I didn't make the decision to be straight so I don't see how anyone can make a decision to be gay.

I'm catholic and have no problem with the gay community. I don't think these beliefs make me any less of a catholic.

Bannasidhe · 29-07-2012 9:15am

philologos wrote: »

Again, covenant theology, which is a basic part of Christianity shows that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross so that we might be forgiven. This influences how we read these passages as Christians.

If Jesus has died for my sins on the cross, then what right have I to insist that others should be put to death? If I've been forgiven I must forgive others (Matthew 18) also the Lord's prayer "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us".

Your quotation also ignores context insofar as this is within the Biblical State of Israel which no longer exists. Christians recognise that we will be under unbelieving authorities (Romans 13), but our call as Christians is to live distinctive lives so that other people might see the Gospel (see 1 Peter).

Again, this is another reason why I have to say that if you're interested in posting about Christian belief you should become more familiar with covenant theology which is inherent to Christianity.

According to Matthew Jesus also said ' Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24' so surely those who use His name to justify hatemongering against homosexuals (and yes - using terms such as 'abomination', 'sodomites', 'God hates Fags', 'Sinners' is hatemongering) are ignoring a very important aspect of Christ's teaching?

If Jesus died for our sins what right do some Christians have to call me sinner? Surely only He can judge me?

Are some Christians not engaging in casting the first stone?

As for those of us who question the Biblical origins of anti-homosexual propaganda becoming familiar with covenant theology it appears to me that that is exactly what we are trying to do but tbh we are been dismissed for not being already conversant with your religion (which as far as I am aware is 'evangelical' - but again that term is so broad as to defy a precise definition) and it's myriad theological strands even though many Christians would have even less knowledge on the subject than those here who are genuinely enquiring plus there is the annoying fact that the various Christian denominations cannot agree among themselves as to theology.

Some Christians are the ones taking a particular position which states that their fellow human beings are sinners based on certain texts in a book to advocate, lobby and justify the civil state continuing to deny equal rights to some of it's citizens based only on sexual orientation.
Surely the onus is on those Christians - especially when it has been demonstrated that this view is not shared by all Christians - to explain their position and which texts exactly are pertinent and which are not - and why?

philologos · 29-07-2012 10:19am

Irishchick wrote: »

Jesus never once said "write down everything I say, put it in a book and follow it word for word"

The only direct commands we have received from God are the 10 commandments.

I didn't make the decision to be straight so I don't see how anyone can make a decision to be gay.

I'm catholic and have no problem with the gay community. I don't think these beliefs make me any less of a catholic.

I don't have a problem with the gay community either. People are people. And all people need to repent of their sin and believe in the Gospel.

However, it isn't true to say that the 10 Commandments are the only direct commandments of God. From a Christian perspective whole Bible is the word of God, and God's standards are spread throughout it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you'll see that Jesus gives us commandments as to what we should do.

Now, this involves all areas of life, not just the area of sexuality. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore what God has to say about sexuality. As a single heterosexual male that has implications for me as well as for everyone else. Namely insofar as the Gospel teaches that the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage. I need to follow that.

Also, nobody is saying that sexual acts outside of a marriage are any worse than any other sin. Indeed, I would acknowledge that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory as every single person on the face of the earth has (Romans 3:23).

The correct response to sin, is to repent, and to live new lives through Jesus Christ. It isn't to applaud our former sin and to dwell in it. If I love God, I'll live as God has commanded me to. If I am thankful that He saved me by sending His only Son into the world so that I might not perish and have everlasting life (John 3:16) then the only appropriate response is to live for Him rather than the ways of the world that largely doesn't know Him.

philologos · 29-07-2012 10:31am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

According to Matthew Jesus also said ' Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24' so surely those who use His name to justify hatemongering against homosexuals (and yes - using terms such as 'abomination', 'sodomites', 'God hates Fags', 'Sinners' is hatemongering) are ignoring a very important aspect of Christ's teaching?

Edit: By the way, Mark 4:24 comes straight after the Parable of the Sower. It's probably good to read the passage as a whole. I'm going to be starting a new thread to look at that chapter in Mark quite soon. So feel free to join in.

I'm telling people about what God has done. God has revealed His standard to mankind over generations. It is because God has spoken into Creation that we can know anything about Him. I'm thankful that He has given us His word through revelation, and I'm thankful that I can know the truth about Him.

If someone asks me what does the Bible say about sexuality, is it my own personal judgement to say that the Bible says that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of a marriage, or is it God's standard?

I'm personally not claiming that anyone is any worse than I am as a result of their rejection of the Gospel. Why? - I rejected it for a very very long time.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If Jesus died for our sins what right do some Christians have to call me sinner? Surely only He can judge me?

We're all sinners. Every single one of us. Myself very very certainly included in that figure. (Romans 3:23, Psalm 14, Psalm 51).

The following is what Paul the Apostle had to say about sin:

1 Timothy 1:15 wrote:

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

In fact, one who claims that he has not sinned is lying:

1 John 1:10 wrote:

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are some Christians not engaging in casting the first stone?

I'm sure some are.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for those of us who question the Biblical origins of anti-homosexual propaganda becoming familiar with covenant theology it appears to me that that is exactly what we are trying to do but tbh we are been dismissed for not being already conversant with your religion (which as far as I am aware is 'evangelical' - but again that term is so broad as to defy a precise definition) and it's myriad theological strands even though many Christians would have even less knowledge on the subject than those here who are genuinely enquiring plus there is the annoying fact that the various Christian denominations cannot agree among themselves as to theology.

No, I brought up covenant theology because Nodin misquoted a passage. I also brought up covenant theology when Sonic2ks misquoted a passage.

It's only right and proper if we are to read the Bible, we need to understand what exactly it is saying in its correct context.

What I'm saying is - that if you're going to use the Bible, we need to get in to understand what exactly Christians believe about the Bible. I told you about how Christians read the Old Testament on at least three occasions, and you claimed that I was ignoring it. I've also shown you that this how Christians have read the Old Testament since the first century.

I think if you are going to discuss about Christianity - we need to get straight as to what Christians actually believe concerning covenants. If you are going to criticise the Bible, you should understand what Christians believe. I think that's fair.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some Christians are the ones taking a particular position which states that their fellow human beings are sinners based on certain texts in a book to advocate, lobby and justify the civil state continuing to deny equal rights to some of it's citizens based only on sexual orientation.
Surely the onus is on those Christians - especially when it has been demonstrated that this view is not shared by all Christians - to explain their position and which texts exactly are pertinent and which are not - and why?

No. Christians believe that all people are sinners. Myself very very clearly included.

As a result of this Christians believe that people need to repent. Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross precisely because we are sinners (Romans 5:8-9), in order that we can be forgiven. Through His death, we died to sin, through His resurrection we were born again through Him (Romans 6, 1 Peter 1:3).

I've explained my position from the Bible, to you on numerous occasions, and I'll do so again if you want.

I don't think the problem is that you don't understand where my position comes from Biblically, it's that you don't like my position. I understand why that mightn't be the case. Biblical Christianity says that we all have sinned, but that Christ in His loving mercy paid the price for our sin so that we can be forgiven and start a new relationship with our God as we were created to do in the beginning.

That applies to all people, who have done all kinds of sin myself included.

Bannasidhe · 29-07-2012 10:51am

philologos wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the gay community either. People are people. And all people need to repent of their sin and believe in the Gospel.

However, it isn't true to say that the 10 Commandments are the only direct commandments of God. From a Christian perspective whole Bible is the word of God, and God's standards are spread throughout it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you'll see that Jesus gives us commandments as to what we should do.

Now, this involves all areas of life, not just the area of sexuality. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore what God has to say about sexuality. As a single heterosexual male that has implications for me as well as for everyone else. Namely insofar as the Gospel teaches that the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage. I need to follow that.

Also, nobody is saying that sexual acts outside of a marriage are any worse than any other sin. Indeed, I would acknowledge that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory as every single person on the face of the earth has (Romans 3:23).

The correct response to sin, is to repent, and to live new lives through Jesus Christ. It isn't to applaud our former sin and to dwell in it. If I love God, I'll live as God has commanded me to. If I am thankful that He saved me by sending His only Son into the world so that I might not perish and have everlasting life (John 3:16) then the only appropriate response is to live for Him rather than the ways of the world that largely doesn't know Him.

But Phil you have to admit that not all those who define themselves as Christian would share your viewpoint re: people are people and do engage in very public acts of condemnation and vilification against those who do not share their particular ethos. These people use the Bible and Jesus as justification for murder, scare and hate mongering etc etc. They fund advocacy groups which lobby governments to create and legally enshrine a two tiered system of citizenship based on sexual orientation. Surely you can see how it can be confusing when this is all done under the umbrella term of 'Christianity'?

How is an outsider meant to know the difference between you and Fred Phelps when you both use the same terms to define your religious beliefs and refer to the same book to explain your philosophy and actions?

How is an outsider meant to reconcile Jesus' message of love thy neighbour, judge not and let ye without sin cast the first stone with images of Christians waving placards that state that God Hates Fags?

While I am glad for your sake that you have found a spiritual path that gives meaning to your life surely you can accept that other people, like me, have chosen a different path according to the dictates of our consciences but that does not make us abominations deserving of public vilification? Nor does it justify the civil state treating certain citizens as deserving of less than equal rights? After all, to some fundamentalist Roman Catholics you would be a heretic yet you are acting in good faith and according to your conscience. According to some members of evangelical Protestant denominations Roman Catholics are superstitious and idolatrous and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Christians may claim to all sing from the same hymn book, as it were, but that is patently not true.

Is it so hard to accept that other people view Christianity as a judgemental, hate spewing, often hypocritical religion which should not be allowed to dictate how non-Christians live their lives and the laws under which the civil state is governed?

philologos · 29-07-2012 11:00am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But Phil you have to admit that not all those who define themselves as Christian would share your viewpoint re: people are people and do engage in very public acts of condemnation and vilification against those who do not share their particular ethos. These people use the Bible and Jesus as justification for murder, scare and hate mongering etc etc. They fund advocacy groups which lobby governments to create and legally enshrine a two tiered system of citizenship based on sexual orientation. Surely you can see how it can be confusing when this is all done under the umbrella term of 'Christianity'?

Not all, but I could honestly say that a vast majority of mainline Christians do. From experience, I can't say that I've had many Bible studies with other people where there was huge disagreement.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is an outsider meant to know the difference between you and Fred Phelps when you both use the same terms to define your religious beliefs and refer to the same book to explain your philosophy and actions?

Do you ever ask yourself why the majority of mainline Christians don't share the same views as Fred Phelps?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is an outsider meant to reconcile Jesus' message of love thy neighbour, judge not and let ye without sin cast the first stone with images of Christians waving placards that state that God Hates Fags?

Jesus managed to do a very good job of it. He regarded that people had all sinned and fallen short of God's standards (see Mark 7 for example), yet He still engaged with them and loved them.

That's what Christian churches need to be like. We need to follow what God has revealed in His word, and also engage positively with those around us even if they disagree.

Fred Phelps could learn a lot from Jesus.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While I am glad for your sake that you have found a spiritual path that gives meaning to your life surely you can accept that other people, like me, have chosen a different path according to the dictates of our consciences but that does not make us abominations deserving of public vilification? Nor does it justify the civil state treating certain citizens as deserving of less than equal rights? After all, to some fundamentalist Roman Catholics you would be a heretic yet you are acting in good faith and according to your conscience. According to some members of evangelical Protestant denominations Roman Catholics are superstitious and idolatrous and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Christians may claim to all sing from the same hymn book, as it were, but that is patently not true.

I don't believe that the vast majority of Roman Catholics would claim that I was being unfair or unreasonable in respect to the Scripture that I've cited.

People say a lot of things. The question is are what the things that people say Biblical. That's why when I go to church, if I hear my pastor say something that I'm not sure about Biblically, I'll ask him to show me where he found that in. Generally that doesn't happen since my church uses expository preaching, but if it did happen that's the first port of call.

For the most part, Christians are in agreement about covenant theology. Most Christians are in agreement that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). If nobody had sinned, Jesus would have never had to die. If one claims to be sinless they are lying, because all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is it so hard to accept that other people view Christianity as a judgemental, hate spewing, often hypocritical religion which should not be allowed to dictate how non-Christians live their lives and the laws under which the civil state is governed?

I understand how people might, because Christianity teaches that there is something wrong with the way we live. However, that's reality, and often people don't like reality either.

However, most people who reject the Gospel ignore the following - Christians believe that if we simply repent and believe the Gospel, that we can be forgiven and come to a new relationship with God.

That's the best news that has ever come into this world. Christians need to be sharing this more often.

Feel free to come back at me.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying that non-Christians can't do X, Y or Z. I'm saying that I won't applaud X, Y or Z.

Helix · 29-07-2012 11:02am

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The Pope can't do anything to change or alter the Christian teaching on Marriage. Which will always and will always remain between a Man and a Women.

He is not dictating anything. He is preaching the teaching that the church holds, as passed on by the apostles

Its not going to Change.

nor should it change. but just because it's not allowed as a catholic ceremony doesn't mean it should be stopped as a non catholic ceremony. that's the single biggest thing about it

a religious sect doesnt like homosexuality? fine. don't allow it in your sect. but you can't dictate how the rest of the world lives

Sin City · 29-07-2012 11:03am

philologos wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the gay community either. People are people. And all people need to repent of their sin and believe in the Gospel.

However, it isn't true to say that the 10 Commandments are the only direct commandments of God. From a Christian perspective whole Bible is the word of God, and God's standards are spread throughout it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you'll see that Jesus gives us commandments as to what we should do.

Now, this involves all areas of life, not just the area of sexuality. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore what God has to say about sexuality. As a single heterosexual male that has implications for me as well as for everyone else. Namely insofar as the Gospel teaches that the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage. I need to follow that.

Also, nobody is saying that sexual acts outside of a marriage are any worse than any other sin. Indeed, I would acknowledge that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory as every single person on the face of the earth has (Romans 3:23).

The correct response to sin, is to repent, and to live new lives through Jesus Christ. It isn't to applaud our former sin and to dwell in it. If I love God, I'll live as God has commanded me to. If I am thankful that He saved me by sending His only Son into the world so that I might not perish and have everlasting life (John 3:16) then the only appropriate response is to live for Him rather than the ways of the world that largely doesn't know Him.

The whole Bible cant be the word of God, as surely God would know that some things in the bible are a bit mad, plus lets face it the writers who were said to be "inspired" by God , always tended to put their own slant on things and more than likley would have written in a style that would have complemeted their own ideals and world view at the time.

MrPudding · 29-07-2012 11:12am

philologos wrote: »

Not all, but I could honestly say that a vast majority of mainline Christians do. From experience, I can't say that I've had many Bible studies with other people where there was huge disagreement.

So are catholic not mainstream? if they are, how do you explain my earlier post; 84% of Irish people identify themselves as catholic, but 70% of Irish support same sex marriage?

MrP

philologos · 29-07-2012 11:19am

Sin City wrote: »

The whole Bible cant be the word of God, as surely God would know that some things in the bible are a bit mad, plus lets face it the writers who were said to be "inspired" by God , always tended to put their own slant on things and more than likley would have written in a style that would have complemeted their own ideals and world view at the time.

We can take that to the Atheist / Christian debate thread if you want.

I'd love for you to show me how God should think that some things in the Bible are mad, and I'd love for you to show me how people put a slant on the Bible.

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

MrPudding · 29-07-2012 11:24am

philologos wrote: »

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

So, are catholic not mainline christian then? Simple question.

If I recall correctly, have you not argued if someone want to call themselves a catholic then they are entitled to do so, even if they don't necessarily follow all the tenants of that religion.

Sin City · 29-07-2012 11:37am

philologos wrote: »

We can take that to the Atheist / Christian debate thread if you want.

I'd love for you to show me how God should think that some things in the Bible are mad, and I'd love for you to show me how people put a slant on the Bible.

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

Slant on the bible can be seen from reading the Gospels according to the four authors. They are not 100 % accurate were they. Each writer put his own " expirence" into each account.

As for God , Noahs ark , Tower of Bable etc were a bit OTT and could have been handled better by God

Anyway back to gay marraige ,which was in my origional point that the writers of the Bible brought in that Gay marraige was "wrong" due to cultural norms and not that there was anything immoral about it

It all comes down to territory and family

If a man was say married (a lot of arranged marraiges back then btw, usually for land) but the man was gay , and then left his wife for another man that wife (and any children that were produced) were in effect left destitute as the land that may have passed from her family to himwould be kept by him, and they wouldnot allowed back into their own tribe and family. Gay men then were seen as a threat to society and the family. They were to be condemed and thought of as evil, the Bible is just echoing this

Bannasidhe · 29-07-2012 11:40am

philologos wrote: »

Not all, but I could honestly say that a vast majority of mainline Christians do. From experience, I can't say that I've had many Bible studies with other people where there was huge disagreement.

Do you ever ask yourself why the majority of mainline Christians don't share the same views as Fred Phelps?

Jesus managed to do a very good job of it. He regarded that people had all sinned and fallen short of God's standards (see Mark 7 for example), yet He still engaged with them and loved them.

That's what Christian churches need to be like. We need to follow what God has revealed in His word, and also engage positively with those around us even if they disagree.

Fred Phelps could learn a lot from Jesus.

I don't believe that the vast majority of Roman Catholics would claim that I was being unfair or unreasonable in respect to the Scripture that I've cited.

People say a lot of things. The question is are what the things that people say Biblical. That's why when I go to church, if I hear my pastor say something that I'm not sure about Biblically, I'll ask him to show me where he found that in. Generally that doesn't happen since my church uses expository preaching, but if it did happen that's the first port of call.

For the most part, Christians are in agreement about covenant theology. Most Christians are in agreement that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). If nobody had sinned, Jesus would have never had to die. If one claims to be sinless they are lying, because all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.

I understand how people might, because Christianity teaches that there is something wrong with the way we live. However, that's reality, and often people don't like reality either.

However, most people who reject the Gospel ignore the following - Christians believe that if we simply repent and believe the Gospel, that we can be forgiven and come to a new relationship with God.

That's the best news that has ever come into this world. Christians need to be sharing this more often.

Feel free to come back at me.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying that non-Christians can't do X, Y or Z. I'm saying that I won't applaud X, Y or Z.

Firstly, it is not that I do not 'like' your position, it is that I do not agree with it. Nonetheless, I will defend your right to hold it and request that you extend me the same. I am seeking to understand your position to the best of my ability given that we profoundly disagree on one important aspect of it which is that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins. If I am incorrect then Jesus will judge me. No mortal human has the right to make a window into my soul and condemn me for what they think they see there.

That is not to say that I am perfect or have never done things of which I am not proud and for which I have tried to make amends. My own sense of justice, fairness and desire to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror free of guilt for my actions dictate I make amends for my personal wrongdoing. Yet, according to your religion I am condemned to Hell - not for my actions but for my lack of belief.
According to some of your co-religionists I am condemned to Hell and an abomination deserving of public vilification and 2nd class citizenship for being in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship with a member of the same gender.

As I have said - I have no issue with Christians living according to the commandments contained within the Bible - indeed I believe that is exactly what they should be doing - following their rule book as it were. But it is not my rule book, no more than the Koran is, so why should I be obliged to abide by it?

No religion should dictate how the civil state treats it's citizens. Were Roman Catholicism to be made Ireland's official State religion and some form of 'penal laws' to be introduced against non-Catholics I would advocate for freedom of religion for all Irish citizens and equality under the law.

That is what the campaign for Gay Marriage is about - equality under the civil laws of the State. No-one is asking for the 'right' to a religious wedding. No-one is advocating that religious organisations act in contrary to their ethos. We are simply saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals deserve to be treated equally by the civil state.

Sin City · 29-07-2012 11:43am

philologos wrote: »

W

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

Yes but "most" Christians would be old school and would be believing what they were conditioned.

Give it time and Im sure most Christians would be appalled by the beliefs of their elders on these matters even comparring them to apparthied South Africa

aloyisious · 29-07-2012 11:47am

Marriage itself is precedent to the existing major religions which spring from the Old and New Books. It is not the prerogative of any one religion or sect.

Sticking to the Civil Marriage part of this debate, it is an affair of state. The churches and religions have long recognized the right of states to perform civil marriage. Neither religion nor it's believers have the right to deny any state the right to extend the civil liberties granted to them by any state to other state citizens, including same-sex couples.

To entrust one's civil liberties to those of utter religious belief is to give them free sway over your liberty.

philologos · 29-07-2012 11:56am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly, it is not that I do not 'like' your position, it is that I do not agree with it. Nonetheless, I will defend your right to hold it and request that you extend me the same. I am seeking to understand your position to the best of my ability given that we profoundly disagree on one important aspect of it which is that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins. If I am incorrect then Jesus will judge me. No mortal human has the right to make a window into my soul and condemn me for what they think they see there.

Ultimately, it is because you don't 'like' Christian belief that one doesn't like the idea that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's standards and that only Jesus Christ can save us from sin.

You mightn't believe in it, but it is what Christians believe about all sin. The reason Christians claim that all have sinned is easy to explain, it is because all of us at some point have done what is evil rather than what was good. Nobody can really deny that. All one needs to do is open up the newspaper and see what kinds of evil that we've done lately.

Of course that affects how Christians see this issue.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is not to say that I am perfect or have never done things of which I am not proud and for which I have tried to make amends. My own sense of justice, fairness and desire to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror free of guilt for my actions dictate I make amends for my personal wrongdoing. Yet, according to your religion I am condemned to Hell - not for my actions but for my lack of belief.
According to some of your co-religionists I am condemned to Hell and an abomination deserving of public vilification and 2nd class citizenship for being in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship with a member of the same gender.

No, according to Christianity, all stand condemned because all have sinned against God (John 3:18).

Thankfully, Jesus Christ came into the world to offer Himself to stand in our place, take God's wrath so that we can be forgiven. That's incredible news. Repent, turn back, sincerely say that one is sorry that one has done evil rather than good, and one can begin a new relationship with the living God.

The only way one can really make amends for what is evil, is to hold fast to what is truly good. Namely God and His standards.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I have said - I have no issue with Christians living according to the commandments contained within the Bible - indeed I believe that is exactly what they should be doing - following their rule book as it were. But it is not my rule book, no more than the Koran is, so why should I be obliged to abide by it?

Living according to the commandments means regarding what God regards as good, to be good, and regarding what God regards as evil, to be evil. I can't applaud or support sin for that reason. I need to live my life in such a way that I live for Jesus.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No religion should dictate how the civil state treats it's citizens. Were Roman Catholicism to be made Ireland's official State religion and some form of 'penal laws' to be introduced against non-Catholics I would advocate for freedom of religion for all Irish citizens and equality under the law.

You're misunderstanding how a secular state should work. Secularism doesn't say that no religion can contribute to public life. What secularism does say is that every proposal for legislation should be considered on merit and merit alone, and not because it came from holy book X or Y. If a Jewish politician or a Muslim politician presented legislation based on the Torah or the Qur'an that abounded with merit and was clearly what was best for society, I'd welcome that.

I think on the same note, that Christians and those of other faiths should be welcome to say why they believe that traditional marriage should be left as it is if they are of that persuasion, and then the people should consider what is of merit.

That's a fair democracy. Both sides having their say and thrashing it out. Thrashing legislation out produces better legislation for all irrespective of whether one is a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or a Sikh, or of no religion.

If people have concerns about marriage and family, then I think they should be heard rather than ignored.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is what the campaign for Gay Marriage is about - equality under the civil laws of the State. No-one is asking for the 'right' to a religious wedding. No-one is advocating that religious organisations act in contrary to their ethos. We are simply saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals deserve to be treated equally by the civil state.

See above.

Sin City wrote: »

Yes but "most" Christians would be old school and would be believing what they were conditioned.

Except for the fact that many have thought deeply about what they believe in. Many are also converts to Christianity.

This argument is becoming more and more irrelevant in the 21st century when most Christians live outside of the Western world.

Sin City wrote: »

Give it time and Im sure most Christians would be appalled by the beliefs of their elders on these matters even comparring them to apparthied South Africa

Sexuality is not biologically determined. Race very clearly is. There's not a comparison to be made in that respect.

Christianity does not encourage race distinction. The Bible clearly itself says otherwise:

Galatians 3:28 wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Sin City · 29-07-2012 11:59am

philologos wrote: »

Sexuality is not biologically determined. Race very clearly is. There's not a comparison to be made in that respect.

Christianity does not encourage race distinction. The Bible clearly itself says otherwise:

Am Sexuality is biologicaly determined. You dont choose to be gay the same way you dont choose your race.

But the Bible does encourage sexual distinction?

Sin City · 29-07-2012 12:03pm

philologos wrote: »

Except for the fact that many have thought deeply about what they believe in. Many are also converts to Christianity.

This argument is becoming more and more irrelevant in the 21st century when most Christians live outside of the Western world.

Most converts would be origionaly from one of the Big three religeons so they too would have been conditioned anyway. Believers would leave anything that might undermine their own ideologies out or gloss over them even claim that they arent important

philologos · 29-07-2012 12:04pm

Sin City wrote: »

Am Sexuality is biologicaly determined. You dont choose to be gay the same way you dont choose your race.

But the Bible does encourage sexual distinction?

What do you mean by "sexual distinction"?

There's no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined.

Irrespective, we have another argument on our hands. Should every feeling be acted upon of necessity? For example, if I am deeply angry with someone is it acceptable for me to express that anger at them in public? Or are there times when that isn't appropriate.

As a single heterosexual male, the Bible has as much to say to me as it does to anyone else at this issue. By saying that sexuality should be expressed within a marriage, it is appropriate to wait until that point.

It's important to note that the Bible talks about much much more than sexual sin. That's why I'm always pointing to the fact that we've all sinned. This isn't about a particular sin and that only, it is about all sin and as Christian we should be mindful that we don't make out that particular sins are any less sin than another.

Sin City wrote: »

Most converts would be origionaly from one of the Big three religeons so they too would have been conditioned anyway. Believers would leave anything that might undermine their own ideologies out or gloss over them even claim that they arent important

This is a poor argument. You're essentially trying to imply that Islam and Judaism are the exact same as Christianity.

What about atheists and agnostics who become Christians?

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments